[Simeon_Strangelight]

< The Millennials are not in charge. It's old globalist elite financed assholes who are dealing the cards.

The removal of capacity does not surprise me and is exactly why LA looks like that.

A city like LA should have scores and scores of high-rises - preferably each surrounded by small parks.

The same guys who brought you the Agenda 21 solution for LA also bring you housing near highways. The useless eaters can all die fast - that is also preferable. Wait until the electric cars get rolled out for real and gasoline starts getting banned - then the real tremendous drop in living standard can begin.

The Millennials and Z-generation are turning out as obnoxious and social-justicy moronic as the globalists want them to be. The continuous Brave New World indoctrination works very well. The few who are able to break free from this barely count.

[nek]

I'm glad this thread got bumped, hell of a lot of quality analysis and useful information provided.

With regard to the"instant gratification" issue, I think with this issue, there's a socio-sexual element to it that's largely being ignored by society writ large. Women (particularly the young, constantly needing external stimulation variety that seem ubiquitous in large western metro areas), are shutting out men who play the game of delaying gratification. Many of these women are either well funded by daddy or are so deep in the debt hole that Satan's horn can tickle that very minimal taint they possess, so they can (and do) succumb to their desires for instant gratification, be a night out for drinks or seeing Singer XYZ perform. Therefore, the guys that are staying in, being responsible, saving money, working more, are passed on by women in need of quick dopamine hits or are simply not in position to play the game since they aren't where the women are at. As a result, the dudes who also are either coming from money, heavily in debt, or scraping by but with a "cool job" in nightlife are the only ones that get to capitalize on that.

Men, on a large scale, follow the pussy, so guys are doing what needs to be done to be relevant in the marketplace, which means buying the latest gadgets, nights out, living in the trendy parts of cool cities, i.e. not being financially responsible. If delaying gratification was a trait found across the board in women, the majority of men would follow suite. Currently however, delaying gratification means, for a lot of men, missing out on your youth and the youth of the women they're pursuing and trading that in for, at best, a shot at some woman that has been rode hard and put up wet.

The "can't say no to my little angel" dad's that are funding these lifestyles have no idea what they're doing on the greater scale.

[kosko]

(12-09-2017 02:35 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< The Millennials are not in charge. It's old globalist elite financed assholes who are dealing the cards.

The removal of capacity does not surprise me and is exactly why LA looks like that.

A city like LA should have scores and scores of high-rises - preferably each surrounded by small parks.

The same guys who brought you the Agenda 21 solution for LA also bring you housing near highways. The useless eaters can all die fast - that is also preferable. Wait until the electric cars get rolled out for real and gasoline starts getting banned - then the real tremendous drop in living standard can begin.

The Millennials and Z-generation are turning out as obnoxious and social-justicy moronic as the globalists want them to be. The continuous Brave New World indoctrination works very well. The few who are able to break free from this barely count.

The high-rise in Park model does not work. That was plans created by the old European globalist guard during the modernist boom. Their paper experiments have not had any successful examples as all these sorts of projects turned into dystopian tower slums quickly.

Humans don't like this type of living. It promotes segregation, keeps people isolated, creates distance from amenities, park space surrounding the tower is largely useless grass and is not well manicured or a atureal setting that humans enjoy.

The best model is the "Town" model where you have townhouses, cottage courts, apartments on top of stores. Tight urbanized towns that are linked together with train. All linking to created a larger metro area with a major Commerce hub in the center. There isn't a perfect example of this but would be a blend of Tokyo, Istanbul, Barcelona, Paris and Copenhagen.

[RexImperator]

Radio program: http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/10/09/h...ership-low

Quote:

In the depths of the Great Recession, waves of American homes went into foreclosure. Homeowners were in deep trouble. And big time American investment money - private equity – moved into American neighborhoods and bought up thousands and thousands of homes. Turned neighborhoods into rental districts, waiting to resell. They’re still buying, and its changing who owns, who rents, what they pay, how we live. This hour, On Point: When big investment money hits the neighborhood and home ownership.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(12-09-2017 02:47 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The high-rise in Park model does not work. That was plans created by the old European globalist guard during the modernist boom. Their paper experiments have not had any successful examples as all these sorts of projects turned into dystopian tower slums quickly.

Humans don't like this type of living. It promotes segregation, keeps people isolated, creates distance from amenities, park space surrounding the tower is largely useless grass and is not well manicured or a atureal setting that humans enjoy.

The best model is the "Town" model where you have townhouses, cottage courts, apartments on top of stores. Tight urbanized towns that are linked together with train. All linking to created a larger metro area with a major Commerce hub in the center. There isn't a perfect example of this but would be a blend of Tokyo, Istanbul, Barcelona, Paris and Copenhagen.

Actually it does work, but it depends who is located there. I guess you have in mind the projects in the US or the banlieues around Paris.

Vienna:


In the background office buildings - front to the park and with view to the Danube - you have high-quality apartment buildings. (and by high-quality I don't even mean expensive - middle class retail store workers can afford a flat there)
And this concept does not even go very far. You could have dozens of bigger high-rises there - everyone having a green view.

And as far as dystopian development goes - if you put the wrong people into those, then it will 100% go to shit.
Of course that does not work, but that is more dependent on who is living there, whether it's a dystopian hell-hole of single motherhood households and other currently dysfunctional parts of society.

Actually high-rises surrounded by a moderate amount of green places are the most desirable locations in cities. The small-tier little towns are too antiquated and also would result in massive LA-like spread.

I think you are mixing here social issues with architecture. Architecture cannot solve endemic social issues - no magic dirt will do that.

[Suits]

Richmond Hill councillor proposes motion for third parking space

As more adult children live at home, many residents are calling for permission to add a third parking space on their property.

Quote:

Dave Collings can park two cars at his Richmond Hill home.

One car fits nicely in the garage and the second fits in the driveway. But, like so many other local residents, it would be preferable to use more of his property frontage to create a third parking space.

“Many families have an older child living at home who can drive and needs a car for school or work,” Collings said. “It is a trend now where the cost of housing for the younger generation is too high, so they need to live at home. Well, they now need a place to park three cars.”

The way he sees it, allowing for an extra parking space on the front of people’s properties would keep more cars off the street, making it safer for pedestrians, drivers and the snow plows in the winter months.

The current rules require 45 per cent of a residential property frontage to be landscaped, not driveway.









It is a rule Ward 1 Councillor Greg Beros recently proposed be altered, to help residents solve some of their immediate parking woes. Armed with a petition with nearly 200 Ward 1 residents supporting the idea, he asked his fellow councillors to support his motion asking town staff to come up with appropriate wording that would allow for the amendment.

“We want to be seen as helping,” he told council. “I certainly get the issue, especially in the more intensified areas of town.”

He showed two photos, in one of which the resident paved the majority of the front lawn to accommodate more cars and stated this was not what he nor the residents were looking for. The second photo showed a resident who had laid interlocking brick, which is considered a hard landscaping feature, along the side of his driveway to give just enough room to park a second vehicle.

“The second photo is more of what we are looking for,” he said.

While Mayor Dave Barrow thought it was a great solution, other councillors were concerned about the timing of the proposal, since the town is currently working on an on-street permit parking system.

“Before we go ahead with this, I would prefer to do what we are already doing first,” Ward 4 Councillor David West said. “I say we defer it until after our on-street parking bylaw is set.”

Beros urged the council not to defer the discussion or the decision because residents are dealing with this situation right now and it could take time to institute the other parking bylaw.

“Parking has been an issue for years and years,” Beros said. “Parking studies get bumped and bumped again for more important things and residents are done. They need help now.”

Council argued about setting a referral date for when the issue could be returned to the agenda. However, no firm date was set, since it was unclear when the permit parking project would be complete.

The issue will return to council following the completion of the permit parking project.

[Thot Leader]

There is a kernel of truth here. The Boomers aren't wrong when they point out Millennials piss money away on things Boomers wouldn't have dreamed of splurging on when they were around the same age (say 25-35, when most were buying their first homes and starting families). Vacations twice a year, expensive clothing and electronics, eating out constantly. It definitely adds up. Still, it might not make a difference how much Millennials spend on avocados and iPhones when houses cost a million bucks.

[treypound]

Interesting take on this subject. Since I work in Real Estate, and have since before the recession, I hear the challenges some run into trying to achieve homeownership, however I also know there are plenty of first time homebuyers waiting until they get married and buying their first place together. Last year alone, I helped nearly a dozen couples in their 20s do that. Since I am not handling the financing I do not see their student loan burden, but I would assume some if not all graduated school with some debt.

No matter what generation you are from, homeownership is part of the path to wealth. Much like any investment, you don't want your entire investment portfolio just in single family homes, but renting your entire life is like leasing a car your entire life. You spend thousands, and in the end own nothing.

[Genghis Khan]

(02-25-2018 11:13 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

There is a kernel of truth here. The Boomers aren't wrong when they point out Millennials piss money away on things Boomers wouldn't have dreamed of splurging on when they were around the same age (say 25-35, when most were buying their first homes and starting families). Vacations twice a year, expensive clothing and electronics, eating out constantly. It definitely adds up. Still, it might not make a difference how much Millennials spend on avocados and iPhones when houses cost a million bucks.

Yeah, Boomers are the epitome of frugal spending. That's why federal US debt stands at about $20 trillion.

$20 fucking trillion...what the fuck did the older generations spend 20 trillion dollars on?

If only Boomers spent their own money on avocados and iPhones instead of borrowing from and bankrupting their progeny...

[Genghis Khan]

(02-25-2018 12:24 PM)treypound Wrote:  

Interesting take on this subject. Since I work in Real Estate, and have since before the recession, I hear the challenges some run into trying to achieve homeownership, however I also know there are plenty of first time homebuyers waiting until they get married and buying their first place together. Last year alone, I helped nearly a dozen couples in their 20s do that. Since I am not handling the financing I do not see their student loan burden, but I would assume some if not all graduated school with some debt.

No matter what generation you are from, homeownership is part of the path to wealth. Much like any investment, you don't want your entire investment portfolio just in single family homes, but renting your entire life is like leasing a car your entire life. You spend thousands, and in the end own nothing.

I'm OK with this. Having my own place would be nice, but considering the volatility of the world, I rather not be tied down to one place for 30+ years. This isn't the 1960s anymore where jobs were guaranteed for life. Pay thousands and have freedom to move whenever I want? I'll take it.

[Thot Leader]

(02-25-2018 01:07 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 11:13 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

There is a kernel of truth here. The Boomers aren't wrong when they point out Millennials piss money away on things Boomers wouldn't have dreamed of splurging on when they were around the same age (say 25-35, when most were buying their first homes and starting families). Vacations twice a year, expensive clothing and electronics, eating out constantly. It definitely adds up. Still, it might not make a difference how much Millennials spend on avocados and iPhones when houses cost a million bucks.

Yeah, Boomers are the epitome of frugal spending. That's why federal US debt stands at about $20 trillion.

$20 fucking trillion...what the fuck did the older generations spend 20 trillion dollars on?

If only Boomers spent their own money on avocados and iPhones instead of borrowing from and bankrupting their progeny...

You're conflating gov't debt with personal or consumer debt. I'm not defending the policies ushered in by the Boomers, yes they have permanently indebted the generations that follow. I know plenty of Millennials who managed to buy houses, start families, etc. But they were typically frugal, working/saving/investing rather than splurging. All the Boomers I know that retired comfortably were themselves rather frugal; their nest eggs were built on by deferring gratification, not from whatever they received from the gov't.

[Genghis Khan]

(02-25-2018 01:19 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 01:07 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 11:13 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

There is a kernel of truth here. The Boomers aren't wrong when they point out Millennials piss money away on things Boomers wouldn't have dreamed of splurging on when they were around the same age (say 25-35, when most were buying their first homes and starting families). Vacations twice a year, expensive clothing and electronics, eating out constantly. It definitely adds up. Still, it might not make a difference how much Millennials spend on avocados and iPhones when houses cost a million bucks.

Yeah, Boomers are the epitome of frugal spending. That's why federal US debt stands at about $20 trillion.

$20 fucking trillion...what the fuck did the older generations spend 20 trillion dollars on?

If only Boomers spent their own money on avocados and iPhones instead of borrowing from and bankrupting their progeny...

You're conflating gov't debt with personal or consumer debt. I'm not defending the policies ushered in by the Boomers, yes they have permanently indebted the generations that follow. I know plenty of Millennials who managed to buy houses, start families, etc. But they were typically frugal, working/saving/investing rather than splurging. All the Boomers I know that retired comfortably were themselves rather frugal; their nest eggs were built on by deferring gratification, not from whatever they received from the gov't.

Debt is debt. I can spend my own money or have the government spend my grandkids money - at the end of the day I still spent money I didn't have.

Pretending otherwise is as delusional as a thot thinking she's living under her means while using her daddy's credit card to spend thousands of dollars she doesn't have.

Similarly, just because it's not on Boomers' personal balance sheet but the government's doesn't magically make them more frugal.

[Thot Leader]

(02-25-2018 02:37 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 01:19 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 01:07 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 11:13 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

There is a kernel of truth here. The Boomers aren't wrong when they point out Millennials piss money away on things Boomers wouldn't have dreamed of splurging on when they were around the same age (say 25-35, when most were buying their first homes and starting families). Vacations twice a year, expensive clothing and electronics, eating out constantly. It definitely adds up. Still, it might not make a difference how much Millennials spend on avocados and iPhones when houses cost a million bucks.

Yeah, Boomers are the epitome of frugal spending. That's why federal US debt stands at about $20 trillion.

$20 fucking trillion...what the fuck did the older generations spend 20 trillion dollars on?

If only Boomers spent their own money on avocados and iPhones instead of borrowing from and bankrupting their progeny...

You're conflating gov't debt with personal or consumer debt. I'm not defending the policies ushered in by the Boomers, yes they have permanently indebted the generations that follow. I know plenty of Millennials who managed to buy houses, start families, etc. But they were typically frugal, working/saving/investing rather than splurging. All the Boomers I know that retired comfortably were themselves rather frugal; their nest eggs were built on by deferring gratification, not from whatever they received from the gov't.

Debt is debt. I can spend my own money or have the government spend my grandkids money - at the end of the day I still spent money I didn't have.

Pretending otherwise is as delusional as a thot thinking she's living under her means while using her daddy's credit card to spend thousands of dollars she doesn't have.

Similarly, just because it's not on Boomers' personal balance sheet but the government's doesn't magically make them more frugal.

Having debt on a personal balance sheet from a bullshit education or from buying useless shit on your credit card will directly prevent you from buying/owning a home even moreso than the economic conditions we've inherited.

I consider Boomers frugal because most of the Boomers I know who managed to retire comfortably were frugal in their personal spending habits, which is the main thing that allowed them to buy houses and save for retirement. I grant that they ushered in policies that fucked the rest of us over, but when I look at their average wealth vs average spending habits, there seems to be a strong correlation.

[Enoch]

It all comes down to culture & priorities.

For boomer women it was spouse then house.

For millennial women its mimosas then wine.

Men have reacted accordingly.

[Robert High Hawk]

(02-25-2018 12:24 PM)treypound Wrote:  

Interesting take on this subject. Since I work in Real Estate, and have since before the recession, I hear the challenges some run into trying to achieve homeownership, however I also know there are plenty of first time homebuyers waiting until they get married and buying their first place together. Last year alone, I helped nearly a dozen couples in their 20s do that. Since I am not handling the financing I do not see their student loan burden, but I would assume some if not all graduated school with some debt.

No matter what generation you are from, homeownership is part of the path to wealth. Much like any investment, you don't want your entire investment portfolio just in single family homes, but renting your entire life is like leasing a car your entire life. You spend thousands, and in the end own nothing.

Let us look at one of the best case scenarios for owning a home in the US, vs using that money elsewhere.

We can all agree that the greater DC area has been one of the best housing market for decades, surviving the great recession with little depreciation in value, thanks to constant government growth.

A $150k house bought in 1980 in southern Maryland DC area is worth about $850k today. This is direct numbers from a friends parents house in that area. Great investment right?

Hardly.

If you took just the 20% down payment on that house in 1980, a lone 30k, and invested it in Vanguard's REIT Fund, you would have over $1.7 Million today.

If you invested the full amount of the house, $150k, you would have $8.6 million.

The REIT Fund had over 10% average return. All passive investment.

In the meantime, over those 37 years, how much money was spent on house upkeep? How much time was spent on upkeep? How much property tax and interest? People retort that by saying, "oh well it's tax deductible!" That ironically further emphasizes it is not a great investment. And that tax deduction, as we are finding out, may not always be there, especially on property tax.

Now, what if you didn't buy a house in 1980 in DC area? Or Detroit or Cleveland? How easy is it for you to sell your house and get that equity or profits back? How much time are you willing to spend doing all the upkeep and paperwork associated with it?

I am not outright crapping on buying a house, just saying that if you look at what kind of gainz you are getting from it over the long term, compared to relatively simple investment, under the very best conditions you are still not getting far ahead.

Buy a house because you want to own a house. Plain and simple.

Do not buy it to make money unless you are planning on putting massive research and effort into house flipping, renting, etc... and then accept you are putting yourself at serious risk compared to passive investing.

Just be aware.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Boomers are fucking liars when they harp on and on and on about what responsible, frugal penny-pinchers they were.

Pay attention for an extra week or two and invariably they'll start telling other stories about their glory days pissing all their money up the pub wall and writing off cars while blind drunk.

The rise of the "grey nomad" movement is testament to where a single generation can take an entire culture, selling off their only remaining asset (the house) and using it to buy a caravan to whittle away the balance before foisting their end of life care on the taxpayer. The greatest generation begets a pack of narcissists that turn the world's highest civilisation into a train of rootless gypsies looking for the cheapest spot to plug their power cord in and empty their fucking latrines.

May we spit on their graves as an example to our own young.

[Aurini]

(02-25-2018 01:12 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 12:24 PM)treypound Wrote:  

Interesting take on this subject. Since I work in Real Estate, and have since before the recession, I hear the challenges some run into trying to achieve homeownership, however I also know there are plenty of first time homebuyers waiting until they get married and buying their first place together. Last year alone, I helped nearly a dozen couples in their 20s do that. Since I am not handling the financing I do not see their student loan burden, but I would assume some if not all graduated school with some debt.

No matter what generation you are from, homeownership is part of the path to wealth. Much like any investment, you don't want your entire investment portfolio just in single family homes, but renting your entire life is like leasing a car your entire life. You spend thousands, and in the end own nothing.

I'm OK with this. Having my own place would be nice, but considering the volatility of the world, I rather not be tied down to one place for 30+ years. This isn't the 1960s anymore where jobs were guaranteed for life. Pay thousands and have freedom to move whenever I want? I'll take it.

It's not just employment stability but political stability that you need to worry about.

People travel far more than they did 20 years ago; massive diasporas are the norm throughout our countries. As a result, a low-tax Republican bastion can turn full-on socialist in a decade (look at Calgary for instance - the same process is underway in Houston). As Aaron Clarey has pointed out, buying property makes you beholden to the local Municipality. And we have no idea where that's going to go...

[Kona]

I understand the "owning a home is a bad investment" argument. However, there is a real pride ownership and sense of independence like no other once it's yours free and clear. The investment in your house is more than monetary.

You have your own little part of the world that no one can tell you what to do with. Well, except for the tax man and the city, state, county, water company electric company, owners assoc et.

(02-25-2018 06:09 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

It's not just employment stability but political stability that you need to worry about.

This is the truth.

With my house, of course I'm worried (((they))) will have the Japanese attack pearl harbor again. But I also know and know of some families that got mega rich buying super cheap after the attack. People figured Hawaii was gonna get invaded.

On top of that, you never know when you could come home to some type of imminent domain on state construction notice on your door.

Then there's the idea about the economy and the first thing local governments love to do is jack up the property taxes.

Aloha!

[Suits]

(02-25-2018 12:24 PM)treypound Wrote:  

No matter what generation you are from, homeownership is part of the path to wealth. Much like any investment, you don't want your entire investment portfolio just in single family homes, but renting your entire life is like leasing a car your entire life. You spend thousands, and in the end own nothing.

I'll give you a partial pass, as your day job guarantees that you work in an echo chamber where homeownership is the greatest thing ever, but this is one of the most ridiculous set of statements I've ever read.

Home ownership is not the path to wealth. The path to wealth is achieving an income the significantly exceeds your expenses.

You can achieve that with or without home ownership.

Depending on the local market, home ownership might leave you with a worse balance sheet after 30 years than renting (even if you end up having full ownership of the property in the end). There are a number of different reasons for this.

(1) (a) Just about no one pays cash. If you're paying cash for a house, you're already wealthy and this conversation is irrelevant.
(1) (b) If you're not paying cash, you're taking on debt, upon which you're paying interest. Over 10-30 years of interest payments will be a significant sum, so even with including the value of the home in the balance sheet after 30 years, renting may have produced more wealth because you weren't paying the interest payments.

Here's what a 30 year mortgage looks like:



For the first 19 years, you're actually spending more money into interest payments than against the principle.

In fact for the first 8 years, the interest payment is 3/4 or more of the total payment.

In some housing markets, when you account for the interest payments (and perhaps even some markets where you don't), if you'd simply rented instead of having the bank buy you a home and charging you a massive amount of interest on in over a 30 year period, you could have simply rented, spent far less money on housing each month, pocketed the difference and ended up with a bank account after 30 years with more money than the value of the house that you would have ended up owning if you'd taken on debt to "own" a house.

(2) The economic cost of being semi-tied down by a home may exceed the value generated even in markets where buying a home (even with interest payments) exceeds the value generated by renting for cheaper and saving the difference.

If you're a 20-40 year old hard charger, the best financial opportunities will rarely exist within a two hour commute of the house you've bought. Being able to easily pull up shop and move to where the best career and business opportunities are is an incredible ability to have.

I'd argue that if you're pursuing wealth with a 9-5 job (silly, because wealth is rarely achieved through a 9-5 job, but I'll get to that later), the next best position that let's you move up the corporate ladder will statistically not have any chance of being in your neighbourhood.

Unless you live in Singapore or in a country like Canada, with just a few major population centers, odds are you are in a country where 99% to 99.5% of the jobs are not within driving range of your house. And even in Canada, the Greater Toronto Area only has about 5 million people in a nation with a population of 35 million.

So, even as a Canadian living in the Toronto region, the next best opportunity is at least 60% likely to not be within commuting range of the home your bank owns and charges you interest to live in. By only looking for career advancement within a two hour drive of your home will severely limit your income growth potential significantly.

(3) (a) That's all rather pointless, however, because aside from certain high paying careers, nobody is becoming wealthy from working a 9-5. Saving several million by retirement at 65 is not wealth. That's just enough to get by on if you live for 30 years. And for the math geniuses planning their own retirement funds, once you calculate for inflation, today's 30 year old is probably going need 10 million in investments by the time you hit retirement age.

The number of jobs that will even allow you to save that much are few, because employers aren't eager to pay than they absolutely have to, so unless you have a particularly competitive skillset, it's a buyers market and you'll probably earn just enough money to get by for most of your life -- not enough to bank 10 million, even with the magic of compounding value growth.

(3) (b) The real path to wealth is business, not employment. By this, I mean that you must own value that you can sell. At a minimum, you should be able to disconnect your own income from the number of hours you work (and have an income determined exclusively by the value you own). Even better if you own enough value to have a sales staff who have incomes disconnected from the number of hours they work and determined far more by their skills and ability to make sales to whales.

(3) © Unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, creating value is not going to be easy, because creating value is usually expensive, or at a minimum, requires going without an income while you focus your energies and time on value creation.

For those who are confused by what this means, an example would be forgoing a reliable income from a job to concentrate full-time on creating a product that solves a problem that many people face.

No matter how affordable creating value is for you (for example, if you are creation a software product and writing all the code yourself and your only cost is your time), having more money to invest into the business will significantly speed up the work (freeing you up from having a fulltime or part-time job, hiring additional coders, etc).

If you're truly focused on becoming wealthy, you won't be putting money into a housing down-payment when you are young. You'll be investing that money into your ideas. You'll happily rent through this process to keep money free for business development so that you can get rich because you're 70 and simply buy as many houses as you want with cash once you're a success.

[911]

(02-25-2018 01:12 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 12:24 PM)treypound Wrote:  

Interesting take on this subject. Since I work in Real Estate, and have since before the recession, I hear the challenges some run into trying to achieve homeownership, however I also know there are plenty of first time homebuyers waiting until they get married and buying their first place together. Last year alone, I helped nearly a dozen couples in their 20s do that. Since I am not handling the financing I do not see their student loan burden, but I would assume some if not all graduated school with some debt.

No matter what generation you are from, homeownership is part of the path to wealth. Much like any investment, you don't want your entire investment portfolio just in single family homes, but renting your entire life is like leasing a car your entire life. You spend thousands, and in the end own nothing.

I'm OK with this. Having my own place would be nice, but considering the volatility of the world, I rather not be tied down to one place for 30+ years. This isn't the 1960s anymore where jobs were guaranteed for life. Pay thousands and have freedom to move whenever I want? I'll take it.

Housing is far and away your main expense. Being a buyer is the best way to manage that expenditure, both by leveraging your downpayment, and as the best hedge there is against inflation. If you want to move after a few years, you can always rent your place out. 9 times out of 10 you will have a positive cashflow by the middle of your mortgage term. It's a no-brainer especially with historically low interest rates (which aren't going to last much longer).

[kosko]

(12-09-2017 04:47 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(12-09-2017 02:47 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The high-rise in Park model does not work. That was plans created by the old European globalist guard during the modernist boom. Their paper experiments have not had any successful examples as all these sorts of projects turned into dystopian tower slums quickly.

Humans don't like this type of living. It promotes segregation, keeps people isolated, creates distance from amenities, park space surrounding the tower is largely useless grass and is not well manicured or a atureal setting that humans enjoy.

The best model is the "Town" model where you have townhouses, cottage courts, apartments on top of stores. Tight urbanized towns that are linked together with train. All linking to created a larger metro area with a major Commerce hub in the center. There isn't a perfect example of this but would be a blend of Tokyo, Istanbul, Barcelona, Paris and Copenhagen.

Actually it does work, but it depends who is located there. I guess you have in mind the projects in the US or the banlieues around Paris.

Vienna:


In the background office buildings - front to the park and with view to the Danube - you have high-quality apartment buildings. (and by high-quality I don't even mean expensive - middle class retail store workers can afford a flat there)
And this concept does not even go very far. You could have dozens of bigger high-rises there - everyone having a green view.

And as far as dystopian development goes - if you put the wrong people into those, then it will 100% go to shit.
Of course that does not work, but that is more dependent on who is living there, whether it's a dystopian hell-hole of single motherhood households and other currently dysfunctional parts of society.

Actually high-rises surrounded by a moderate amount of green places are the most desirable locations in cities. The small-tier little towns are too antiquated and also would result in massive LA-like spread.

I think you are mixing here social issues with architecture. Architecture cannot solve endemic social issues - no magic dirt will do that.

Take a look much closer....






Everything looks nice from afar but Vienna's business district is sleepy with no action. The above pictures show a dead zone that people don't want to be around. This is common for many high-block buildings, part of the reason many USA downtowns are ghost towns with no action.

All of the life is in the small block buildings where shops and services are:

All of this is similar the world over. Unless you have a limit of space that forces hi-rise living, humans prefer to be around amenities and life.

Hi-rises in the park model has proven to not be conducive to promoting high quality of life which is why middle-class and upper-class people fled those towers (whom they were originally built for) and left them for the poor. The poor with no options take it but it quickly just accelerates the decay and the decline.

All Hi-rise and park does is make distances larger for things humans want to be close too. You stretch out distances and you end up segmenting activity and isolating things. Once you start to isolate people disappear and things start to decay.

Humans also appreciate *some* order and patterns which go against any planned green space and parks which have to attempt to mimic the disorder of nature. Humans in their home areas create mental maps based of familiar patterns and landmarks. They appreciate regularity but not rigidness. When things are to rigid humans recoil and they tend to stay away from completely untamed and wild environments.

This is why the most vibrant areas of cities cost the most because we don't build vibrant areas any more. Everyone wants to live in the area with stores, restaurants, bars nearby and the prices for the limited space goes through the roof.

I have to disagree with your premise because this is something I have intimate knowledge of as a social engineer by training where I literally make people subconsciously react a certain way to their surrounding environment. You can manipulate people all through design and many folks don't even realize that subconscious decisions they make daily are pre-programmed by the intended design of their surroundings they interact with.

This video articulates what I am trying to explain much better, it is long winded but it goes into more details for the reasons as to why humans prefer more lively environments.

Civilized humans have always down the village, town model with clusters of activity closed by to things they need in the day to do. Nobody here can claim to be of some hunter gather world of our ancient primitive ancestors. Unless you are truly rural and live off the land the only life you know is the town or city life unless you grew up in a soulless suburb.

[Jnx]

From a guy that’s worth many times more than any of us

tldw; Buying a house is gambling, rent instead

[911]

(02-25-2018 03:45 PM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 12:24 PM)treypound Wrote:  

Interesting take on this subject. Since I work in Real Estate, and have since before the recession, I hear the challenges some run into trying to achieve homeownership, however I also know there are plenty of first time homebuyers waiting until they get married and buying their first place together. Last year alone, I helped nearly a dozen couples in their 20s do that. Since I am not handling the financing I do not see their student loan burden, but I would assume some if not all graduated school with some debt.

No matter what generation you are from, homeownership is part of the path to wealth. Much like any investment, you don't want your entire investment portfolio just in single family homes, but renting your entire life is like leasing a car your entire life. You spend thousands, and in the end own nothing.

Let us look at one of the best case scenarios for owning a home in the US, vs using that money elsewhere.

We can all agree that the greater DC area has been one of the best housing market for decades, surviving the great recession with little depreciation in value, thanks to constant government growth.

A $150k house bought in 1980 in southern Maryland DC area is worth about $850k today. This is direct numbers from a friends parents house in that area. Great investment right?

Hardly.

If you took just the 20% down payment on that house in 1980, a lone 30k, and invested it in Vanguard's REIT Fund, you would have over $1.7 Million today.

If you invested the full amount of the house, $150k, you would have $8.6 million.

The REIT Fund had over 10% average return. All passive investment.

In the meantime, over those 37 years, how much money was spent on house upkeep? How much time was spent on upkeep? How much property tax and interest? People retort that by saying, "oh well it's tax deductible!" That ironically further emphasizes it is not a great investment. And that tax deduction, as we are finding out, may not always be there, especially on property tax.

Now, what if you didn't buy a house in 1980 in DC area? Or Detroit or Cleveland? How easy is it for you to sell your house and get that equity or profits back? How much time are you willing to spend doing all the upkeep and paperwork associated with it?

I am not outright crapping on buying a house, just saying that if you look at what kind of gainz you are getting from it over the long term, compared to relatively simple investment, under the very best conditions you are still not getting far ahead.

Buy a house because you want to own a house. Plain and simple.

Do not buy it to make money unless you are planning on putting massive research and effort into house flipping, renting, etc... and then accept you are putting yourself at serious risk compared to passive investing.

Just be aware.

You'd have to take out the money you've blown paying rent to get a real picture of where you'd stand financially.

[beta_plus]

It's important to realize that the housing crises that plague much of the west is because women are given the vote.

For some reason, while they can be absolute idiots about the most basic parts of economics and finance, they really get rent seeking. They love passing laws that restrict the construction of residential housing and blocking transportation improvements to more affordable housing.

What's happening now in Oz and Canada they did to DC and other US metro areas starting back in 1999.

Even if you get rid of the immigrants, women will figure out new ways to do this. I wouldn't put it past them to start having housing units torn down because of "muh environment" or "muh global warming" or some other such nonsense.

[kosko]

(02-25-2018 10:23 PM)beta_plus Wrote:  

It's important to realize that the housing crises that plague much of the west is because women are given the vote.

For some reason, while they can be absolute idiots about the most basic parts of economics and finance, they really get rent seeking. They love passing laws that restrict the construction of residential housing and blocking transportation improvements to more affordable housing.

What's happening now in Oz and Canada they did to DC and other US metro areas starting back in 1999.

Even if you get rid of the immigrants, women will figure out new ways to do this. I wouldn't put it past them to start having housing units torn down because of "muh environment" or "muh global warming" or some other such nonsense.

Because women have no skin in the game. Aside from an entry condo how many women actually lope their own cash for the big home? It is always the mans money so they want to restrict what they have by now allowing any others to enjoy what they have.

The moment women hit the workforce Govt started to cheat with double tax income and the banks started getting horny on ways they could exploit women to push more debt onto households.